How and why The San Francisco Chronicle makes endorsements

Interim Mayor Mark Farrell (right) speaks to the San Francisco Chronicle editorial board on Wednesday, Jan. 31. Starting this week, a steady procession of candidates will be meeting with The Chronicle’s editorial board to make their cases for the June 5 election.

Interim Mayor Mark Farrell (right) speaks to the San Francisco...

Starting this week, a steady procession of candidates will be meeting with The Chronicle’s editorial board to make their cases for the June 5 election. Those meetings represent a critical component of the endorsements this newspaper will offer for voters.

It’s always worth pausing to explain how and why those endorsements are made. I recognize from various studies, as well as many conversations with readers and even fellow journalists over the years, that many people regard newspaper endorsements as mysterious, predictable or anachronistic.

Here’s the inside story:

Who decides: This is an important and often misunderstood point. Endorsements are made solely by the editorial board, which includes the publisher and editors and writers on the newspaper’s opinion staff. The Chronicle, like most major newspapers, maintains a firewall between its news and opinion operations. In the business we call it the “separation of church and state.” The editors and reporters who produce our election news coverage are charged to do so fairly, independently and without regard to our endorsement decisions.

Why we do it: Some U.S. newspapers have stopped making endorsements, sometimes because of the uncertainty it creates about the newspaper’s commitment to impartial news coverage and sometimes, frankly, as a business decision (fear of alienating readers). Notably, most of those papers have not stopped editorializing on issues facing their communities. In my view, if a newspaper is going to express its values and take a stand on matters of importance to our readers — from the housing crisis to climate change to ethics in government — it makes no sense to stay silent when it comes time to elect people who can achieve or stymie those objectives.

How we decide: Our due diligence includes meeting with the principals, researching candidates’ records and interviewing others who can offer insight on the issues and politicians. The editorial board then deliberates on potential endorsements, which sometimes raises additional questions that need to be pursued. The endorsement represents the consensus opinion of the editorial board.

What is our goal: I’m always amused after an election when some readers will write in to suggest our endorsements were “right” or “wrong” depending on the results. Our intent is not to predict winners but to provide voters with an informed and independent analysis of the many items on their ballots. The November 2016 election, for example, included 17 state propositions and two dozen city propositions in San Francisco. That is a lot to sort through, and few Californians have the luxury, as we do, to spend dozens of hours on their day jobs on election homework. More important than our final verdict is the reasoning that gives readers a fair analysis, which allows you to determine whether you agree or disagree with our judgment. This year, our online election guide will include our video interviews with candidates in the key races — governor, mayor, U.S. Senate — to offer additional material for voters to consider.

What is the impact: Various surveys over the years, locally to nationally, have consistently produced two conclusions about newspaper endorsements. One is that their influence is limited and inversely proportional to the profile of the contest. Very few voters will be swayed by a newspaper endorsement for governor or president (just two of the nation’s 100 largest newspapers backed Donald Trump in 2016) but they tend to be more likely to follow a recommendation on a below-the-radar judicial race or esoteric ballot measure. The other upshot is that endorsements that are unexpected (a paper that mostly reflects Democratic positions supporting a Republican, or vice versa) draw the most attention and thus carry the most impact.

More on elections

Our plan is to make recommendations on all the statewide offices and propositions, everything on the San Francisco ballot, the regionwide vote on a $3 bridge toll increase and selected local races and ballot measures. We are committed to having them all published by the first week in May, when ballots are sent out for voting by mail. We are well aware that more than half of Californians now vote by mail.

Governor:
With Jerry Brown termed out, it’s a wide-open field, with Gavin Newsom leading in the polls against fellow Democrats Antonio Villaraigosa, John Chiang and Delaine Eastin. Republicans John Cox and Travis Allen must rally to make the November runoff.

Other races: All constitutional offices are at stake. A key one to watch: Former Insurance Commissioner Steve Poizner is competing to get his job back — this time as an independent.

Propositions: Five measures are on the ballot, including a $4 billion bond for parks and others dealing with climate adaptation, water quality and flood control.

REGIONWIDE

Toll increase: Nine Bay Area counties will be voting on whether to authorize a toll increase of up to $3 on state-owned bridges.

SAN FRANCISCO

Mayor: The death of Ed Lee has produced a sprint to a June election to fill the remainder of his term, through 2019. Leading contenders include London Breed, Mark Leno, Jane Kim and Angela Alioto.

Supervisor: The ideological balance of the board is up for grabs in the District Eight race between the moderate-leaning appointed incumbent Jeff Sheehy and progressive Rafael Mandelman.

Propositions: The city ballot is loaded with nine measures, on everything from banning flavored tobacco to arming police officers with Tasers, from stopping the relocation of sports franchises to new taxes for schools, child care and homeless services.

JUDICIARY

San Francisco: Four public defenders are challenging Republican-appointed incumbents (each of whom is a registered Democrat).